User talk:Cain Mosni/Archive 01

Dates
Thank you for your comments on date format. It's an interesting point of discussion. It could be an area of cultural transition, as I have been seeing the new international standard ISO date format in use more and more, especially on web sites which have an international audience, as the format is easier to read for a larger number of people worldwide (and is already the de facto standard in Asia). It will be interesting to see how it evolves over the next generation or so. As far as Wikipedia, every reasonable date format is acceptable (and in use), although individuals will have their personal preferences. I personally support the ISO format for all the reasons normally given with respect to universal readability. At any rate, it will be interesting to see how usage both in the United States and internationally evolves over the next generation or so. Thanks again.... Albanaco 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

List of female singers
You admitted that it would probably be deleted so why recreate it? That's just disruptive and may lead to blocking. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the history. I didn't recreate it.  I was leaving a comment (on the discussion page), that it had been deleted in the past and would be again, following its recreation by another user.  Please get your facts straight before throwing accusations.  Cain Mosni 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I saw the talk page and didn't look at the history. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. Apology graciously accepted.  We all make mistakes - my name's up in lights with the worst of them.  Cain Mosni 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jon_Oliva_129_PS07_250px.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jon_Oliva_129_PS07_250px.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Source Request at Forbidden Planet (bookstore).
I noticed you dropped one off there. I'm kind of tempted to remove it myself, although not because it does have sources. Rather, it's because the article is a stub. Most stubs don't have sources. Generally, the "sources" tag on an article like that is code for "no one's checked this information, it may be false (like I did at Gluten-free, casein-free diet)." I suspect that most people updating the article were using information acquired simply from going there- sure, not the best long-term source, but I don't think it's false, per se.

While it's possible that the article skirts the line of notability, I don't think it needs any source exhortation aside from the one that goes out to probably more than half the articles on Wikipedia. SnowFire 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I would have thought that, even though it qualifies as a stub, it's a stub with some significant basic material in it which very definitely calls for source attribution (such as the inception date of the company, the fact that the NYC shop is actually an expansion of the London chain - particularly since I've heard suggestions to the contrary, etc.).  The fact that the shops exist, and their locations, is verifiable by simply visiting.  The rest requires more in-depth research, and (I would have thought) attribution, but I appreciate the advice on accepted thinking on the issue and I'll take it into account in future.  Cain Mosni 03:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a fair point. I had assumed that they were unaffiliated, myself, but took the editor's word that they actually were a branch of. I suppose a source would be nice for that, so I won't remove the tag (besides, I don't want to give the impression that sources aren't important). SnowFire 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists
Roughly speaking, it meets all the guidelines and policies for a list. I'd say, for the article List of X you only need ask Is it reasonable to have an article titled roughly X?. If the answer is yes, it's an obvious keep. Lists are often nominated on the criterion that Lists are pointless, use categories or This list is a stub - not something I particularly associate with you. Lists like List of X who Y is a lot trickier, but in the case of List of X it often clear that the list should be kept. Deleting articles because they're underdeveloped is pretty pointless - someone may get around to them eventually. Caveat, I am the author of a list WilyD 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you looked over the lists at Featured lists? It may give you some insight into what a list can be. Some of them are definitely "unfinishable" like List of famous brain tumour patients or Cultural Depictions of Joan of Arc.  WilyD 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'm not sure "Lists are more work than categories" is a good argument for deletion - it may be a good argument for you personally not to work on them, but if someone wants to do the work - why not? WilyD 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Research
If you aren't selling anything, explain the phrase "Available whiles supplies last $7.49"... Lying doesn't increase my respect for you. ... clipped from comment by Cain Mosni

Clearly you failed to properly do your research before making your comment CM. If you look to the left of the very line you are quoting there is an external link quite visibly present to someone with 20/20 eyesight. http://www.neilpeartdrumsticks.com That link goes to another source not owned by myself to benefit fans getting the item at the cheapest known price. Before you call someone a liar it would be in your best interest to better properly research the subject so as not to make your self look ignorant and disrespectful to others. Peartdrumsticks 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology Cain ... I fully extend the same right back at you. Looking forward to the future! Peartdrumsticks 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Simon Wiliams
Sorry, not me. We are in agreement that the discography needs expansion though aren't we? Megamanic 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)